Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/speechofhonthbay00bayl_2 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  T.  H.  BAYLY,  OF  VIRGINIA, 


ON  THE  JOINT  RESOLUTION  LIMITING 


THE  EXPENSE  OE  COLLECTING  THE  REVENUE. 

r 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  JANUARY  30  AND  FEBRUARY  8,  1850. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE  OFFICE. 


1850. 


*•  ** 

* 


' 


. 


’  ■  7-  : 


.  I 


i 

' 


■  i  r.j:  .  :  ‘  • 

r 


\ 


' 


' 


.  . 


' 


33^<  73 

$3  Vxu  ,  '  3 

EXPENSE  OF  COLLECTING  THE 


REVENUE. 


Mr.  BAYLY  rose  and  addressed  the  committee 
as  follows  : 

Mr.  Chairman  :  I  deem  it  proper  to  make  some 
remarks  relative  to  the  amendment  which  the  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Ways  and  Means  have  proposed  to  the 
resolution  from  the  Senate. 

By  the  law  of  the  3d  of  March,  1849,  the  ex¬ 
penses  for  collecting  the  revenue  was  limited  to 
$1,560,000  for  the  present  fiscal  year,  commencing 
the  1st  of  July  last  and  ending  the  30th  of  June 
next,  as  I  understand  it.  1  think  this  is  the  plain 
meaning  and  import  of  the  act.  I  know  that  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  the  advice  of  the 
Attorney  General,  has  given  a  different  construc¬ 
tion  to  the  law.  They  have  decided  that  the 
limitation  did  not  take  effect  until  the  last  half  of 
the  current  fiscal  year,  viz:  until  from  the  1st  of 
January  to  the  30th  of  June,  1850.  But  I  shall 
go  into  no  discussion  upon  this  point.  I  have 
no  disposition  to  criticise  the  correctness  of  that 
opinion.  I  doubt  not  it  was  honestly  entertained; 
and  I  shall  leave  its  discussion  to  others.  And 
I  do  this  the  more  readily  because  I  do  not 
consider  it  at  all  material  upon  this  occasion. 
Concede,  if  you  please,  that  the  limitation  in  the  act 
did  not  take  effect  until  after  the  1st  of  January; 
yet  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ought,  during  the 
ten  months  preceding  the  period  when  it  would 
take  effect,  to  have  commenced  his  reduction  of  ex¬ 
penditure  so  as  to  have  brought  himself  gradually, 
and  without  too  great  a  shock,  within  the  limit  pre¬ 
scribed  by  Congress.  He  had  no  right  to  anticipate 
that  Congress  would  precipitately  suspend  or  re¬ 
peal  a  law  which,  after  three  years’  consideration, 
they  had  deliberately  passed.  But  instead  of  this, 
he  expended  during  the  first  six  months  ofthe  fiscal 
year  $1,141,897  21,  as  is  ascertained,  and  $150,000 
more  as  he  estimates — making  $1,291,897  21 — 
leaving  but  $268,102  79  for  the  last  six  months,  if 
the  construction  which  I  put  upon  the  law  be  cor¬ 
rect.  But  take  his  own  construction,  and  admit 
that  the  limitation  in  the  act  did  not  take  effect 
until  the  1st  of  January;  yet  he  allowed  his 
expenditures  to  run  on  for  the  first  six  months  up 
to  the  sum  of  $1,291,897  21,  although  he  knew  he 
would  have  but  $780  000  for  the  last  six  months. 
Take  his  own  construction,  and  I  have  no  dispo¬ 
sition  to  do  him  injustice,  yet  I  maintain  that  he  is 
responsible  for  any  jar  which  may  occur;  for  he 
ought  so  to  have  projected  his  reductions  of  ex¬ 
penditures  as  to  have  made  the  operation  gradual 
and  easy,  instead  of  precipitate  and  harsh.  He 
ought  to  have  distributed  his  reductions  through 
the  year,  instead  of  increasing,  as  he  has  done,  his 
expenditures  during  the  first  six  months,  and  thus 
making  a  precipitate  reduction  necessary  in  the  last. 


The  amount  of  revenue  collected  and  estimated  for 
the  first  six  months  of  the  present  fiscal  year  is 
$18,262,485.  The  amount  expended,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  has  been  $1,291,897  21,  or  a  little 
upwards  of  seven  per  cent,  upon  the  receipts. 
The  importance  of  this  statement  will  be  seen  in 
the  sequel. 

In  this  condition  of  affairs  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  in  his  annual  report  to  Congress,  asked 
our  interposition.  For  some  time  we  could  not 
transact  business  in  consequence  of  our  not  having 
organized  forthatpurpose.  Still  these  expenditures 
went  on.  The  Senate  being  first  organized,  took 
up  the  subject  in  advance  of  us.  That  body  passed 
the  joint  resolution  now  before  us,  appropriating 
the  present  fiscal  year  the  same  sum  expended 
in  the  year  ending  30th  of  June,  1848;  although 
the  revenue  collected  for  that  year  was  $33,034,276, 
and  for  this  year  the  Secretary  estimates  it  at 
$31,500,000.  It  was  acceptable  on  all  sides.  It 
passed  without  objection.  It  appropriated  for  the 
present  fiscal  year  $2,132,636,  that  being  the 
amount  expended  in  the  fiscal  year  ending  June, 
1848.  But  it  was  represented  to  our  committee 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that  this  would 
give  him  no  relief.  According  to  his  construction 
he  already  had  $780,000;  and  this  resolution  only 
gave  him  $840,739  52 — difference  $60,739  58.  It 
was  contended  that  the  sudden  reuuction  which 
this  resolution  would  make  necessary  would  be 
highly  injurious  to  the  public  service:  and  it  was 
proposed  that  we  should  appropriate,  for  the  last 
half  of  the  present  fiscal  year,  one  half  of  what 
was  expended  in  the  year  1848.  This  was  agreed 
to;  and  it  is  the  amendment  now  before  you. 

We  expended,  as  I  have  already  said,  in  the 
year  ending  1848,  $2,132,636 — one  half  of  which 
is  $1 ,066,318.  Add  that  which  has  already  been  ex¬ 
pended  in  the  first  six  months,  viz:  $1,291,897  21, 
and  it  makes  $2,358,215  21;  or  $225,579  more 
than  was  expended  in  1848.  The  amount  whic 
we  thus  appropriate  is  upwards  of  seven  per  cent, 
upon  the  estimated  receipts. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  Secretary  estimates 
that  our  receipts  for  the  current  fiscal  year  will  be 
$1,500,000  less  than  in  1848,  yet,  in  addition  to 
this  surplus  in  the  appropriation  over  that  year,  of 
$225,579,  it  is  asked  that  Oregon  and  California 
should  be  excepted  !  But  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  himself  does  not  estimate  for  the  ex¬ 
penses  of  the  new  districts  in  Texas,  Oregon,  and 
California,  for  the  last  half  of  the  fiscal  year  but 
$125,000;  and  even  add  his  estimate  of  $50,000 
for  increase  of  business,  and  it  only  amounts  to 
$175,000,  which  would  leave  a  surplus  of  $50, 579  of 
appropriation  for  the  Atlantic  coast  over  what  was 


4 


expended  in  1848.  But  it  will  be  said  that  the 
warehouse  system  which  it  was  supposed  would 
cost  the  Government  nothing,  has  become  a  charge 
upon  the  Treasury  of  $194,634  66.  To  make  this 
sum  up,  items  are  included  which  ought  not  to  be 
charged  to  the  warehousing  system. 

But  let  this  pass.  I  will  make  no  point  about 
which  there  can  be  controversy.  Still  it  must  be 
recollected  that  $152,723  79  was  expended  for 
warehouses  in  the  year  ending  30th  June,  1848 — 
being  but  $4 1 ,910  87  less  than  the  sum  charged 
to  warehouses  for  this  year.  Which  sum,  deducted 
from  the  surplus  above  stated,  would  leave  $8,668 
more  appropriated  by  this  bill  than  was  expended 
in  1848,  after  allowing  the  Secretary  all  he  asks 
for  California, Oregon,  the  new  districts  established 
since  then,  and  what  he  terms  increase  of  business, 
(which  last  l  do  not  exactly  understand,  as  he  es¬ 
timates  the  receipts  at  less  than  they  were  in  that 
year,)  and  also  the  difference  of  the  expense  of 
warehouses  in  that  year  and  this.  In  addition  to 
this,  $27,096  was  expended  in  that  year  upon  rev¬ 
enue  cutters.  The  Secretary  last  summer,  to  say 
nothing  about  his  late  circular,  greatly  reduced 
this  branch  of  expenditure,  and  to  the  extent  he 
did  so  added  to  his  available  means  for  other  ser¬ 
vice.  Cannot  gentlemen  be  satisfied  with  this  ? 
Are  we,  by  the  adoption  of  either  of  the  amend¬ 
ments  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Vinton,] 
to  increase  this  sum  which  is  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Secretary  to  an  indefinite  amount?  My  only 
fear  is  we  have  been  too  yielding  already.  Still 
we  are  asked  to  grant  more;  and  how  much  more 
I  am  unable  to  say,  as  the  amendments  of  the  gen¬ 
tleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Vinton]  appropriate  an  in¬ 
definite  sum. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  all  the  indignation 
which  it  has  been  attempted  to  raise  against  Con¬ 
gress,  throughout  the  country,  is  utterly  uncalled 
for.  If  there  be  cause  for  indignation,  it  must 
rest  elsewhere.  If  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
had  commenced  his  curtailments  in  time — if  he 
had  extended  them  from  July,  1849,  to  June, 
1850,  instead  of  increasing  his  expenditures  in 
the  first  six  months,  by  multiplying  officers  and 
increasing  their  salaries,  as  he  has  done  in  many 
instances,  the  whole  operation  of  reduction  would 
have  gone  on  easily  and  smoothly,  and  no  one 
scarcely  would  have  known  that  it  was  going  on 
at  all.  But  instead  of  that,  the  expenditures  are 
increased  in  the  first  six  months,  arid  the  result  is, 
the  jar  which  the  reduction  culled  for  in  the  last  is 
felt. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  said  1  feared  that  in 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  to  the  Senate  resolu¬ 
tion,  we  have  conceded  too  much.  We  certainly 
have  if  we  had  the  whole  year  to  go  over;  but  we 
have  not.  The  Secretary,  as  I  have  already 
shown,  has  greatly  exceeded  the  limits  of  the  law 
and  of  necessity  in  the  first  six  months.  An¬ 
other  month,  on  the  same  or  near  y  the  same  rate 
of  high  expenditure,  is  gone.  There  are  but  five 
left.  Can  we,  with  due  regard  to  the  public  ser¬ 
vice,  compress  the  whole  reduction  within  five 
months?  I  think  not.  Let  it  not  be  said  that  the 
Secretary  has  brought  it  upon  himself,  and  that 
he  must  suffer  the  consequences.  It  is  not  the 
Secretary  alone,  or  principally,  who  is  to  suffer; 
we  must  look  to  the  country,  and  if  he  has  erred, 
we  must  not.  It  will  not  do  to  punish  the  coun¬ 
try  for  his  faults.  1  am  willing  to  give  relief  for 


the  present,  even  if  it  be  extravagant.  But,  sir, 
this  whole  thing  must  be  looked  into,  and  if  Con¬ 
gress  will  sustain  me,  it  shall  be  looked  into  and 
probed  to  its  bottom. 

The  expenditures  of  this  Government  are  too 
great  in  all  of  its  departments,  and  in  none  more 
than  in  collecting  our  revenue.  When  we  con¬ 
sider  the  character  of  our  system,  prior  to  the  law 
of  the  3d  of  March,  1849,  against  which  such  a 
clamor  is  raised,  it  is  not  perceived  how  it  could 
have  been  otherwise.  No  appropriations  made 
bylaw;  no  accountability ;  everything  left  to  the 
discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and 
collectors  !  My  only  surprise  is  that  things  have 
not  been  worse.  But  they  have  been  bad  enough. 
What  do  you  suppose,  if  we  grai  t  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  all  he  asks,  will  be  the  cost  of 
collecting  the  revenue  for  the  present  fiscal  year? 
He  expended  in  the  past  six  months,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  $1,291,897.  He  asks  for  $1,325,000 
more,  making  $2,616,897.  He  estimates  that  the 
revenue  from  customs  will  be  $31,500,000.  So  the 
expenses  of  collection  would  be  upwards  of  eight 
percent.  With  the  sum  we  give  him  it  will  be 
upwards  of  seven  percent.  In  1848  the  percentage 
for  collecting  the  revenue  was  six  and  near  a  half 
per  cent.;  in  1849  it  was  upwards  of  seven  per 
cent. 

The  Secretary  estimates  that  the  receipts  from 
the  customs  for  the  year  ending  June,  1851,  will 
be  $32,000  000;  and  he  puts  the  expenses  of  col¬ 
lection  at  $2,750,000,  or  at  the  rate  of  near  nine 
per  cent. 

Sir,  is  it  possible  that  this  is  necessary?  What 
other  country  pays  so  much  for  collecting  its  rev¬ 
enue?  What  State  in  this  Union,  where  direct 
taxes  prevails,  pays  so  much  ?  I  speak  with  con¬ 
fidence  as  to  one,  (Virginia,)  with  which  I  am  bet¬ 
ter  acquainted  than  with  the  rest.  Our  collectors, 
who  have  to  call  personally  upon  every  tax-payer 
and  receive  the  dues  of  the  Commonwealth  in 
small  sums — some  of  them  less  than  a  dollar — and 
who  is  required  by  law  to  take,  at  his  own  ex¬ 
pense,  what  he  collects  to  the  seat  of  Government; 
to  incur  all  risk,  and  pay  it  into  the  Treasury — is 
allowed  but  five  per  cent.;  and  in  some  instances, 
where  the  collections  are  large,  even  less.  It  is 
true,  for  prompt  payment  the  sheriffs  are  allowed 
seven  and  a  half  per  cent,  upon  the  land  and  prop¬ 
erty  tax,  but  the  additional  two  and  a  half  per 
cent,  is  in  the  nature  of  an  insurance  upon  the  col¬ 
lection;  and  to  secure  it  the  sheriffs  are  compelled 
in  most  instances  to  advance  the  taxes  and  depend 
upon  collections  for  reimbursement.  I  presume  a 
greater  amount  is  not  paid  in  other  States.  Yet 
their  system  of  taxation  is  by  a  direct  tax;  and  we 
know  that  a  leading  argument  in  favor  of  indirect 
taxes  has  always  been,  that  from  the  fact  that  they 
are  received  in  large  sums,  and  at  few  places,  they 
can  be  collected  at  less  expense. 

But  in  looking  into  the  matter  I  have  not 
stopped  with  the  cost  of  collecting  the  revenue  by 
direct  taxation  in  the  States.  During,  and  just 
after  the  war  with  Great  Britain,  we  had  a  direct 
tax  under  the  General  Government.  The  expense 
of  collecting  it  in  1816,  when  the  net  receipts  were 
only  $3,560,651,  was  5  3-16  per  cent. 

Nor  have  I  stopped  here.  I  have  examined  the 
English  documents.  Their  system  of  collecting 
revenue  by  customs  is  more  analogous  to  ours  than 
any  other.  The  per  centage  which  the  collection 


5 


of  the  customs  in  the  United  Kingdom  cost  in  the 
year  ending  the  5th  of  January,  1848 — the  last 
returns  which  we  have — was  5  19  20.  For  Great 
Britain  alone  5§;  and  excluding  Ireland,  Scotland, 
and  the  small  islands,  where  the  revenue  collected 
is  comparatively  small,  and  where  the  preventive 
force  to  guard  against  smuggling  must  be  large, 
the  per  centage  is  less  than  5;  and  take  London 
alone,  where  the  great  amount  of  duties  are  col¬ 
lected,  it  is  less  than  3.  For  many  years  prior  to 
1848,  the  cost  of  collection  was  about  the  same. 
But  to  appreciate  this  comparison  properly  we 
must  advert  to  other  facts.  The  United  Kingdom 
has  a  larger  sea-coast  than  we  have.  Her  sea- 
coast,  including  the  smaller  adjacent  isles,  is  three 
thousand  five  hundred  geographical  miles.  Our 
Atlantic  coast  is  one  thousand  five  hundred,  ex¬ 
clusive  of  our  islands,  most  of  \Hiich,  from  the 
shallowness  of  the  water  between  ihem  and  the 
main  land,  cannot  be  said  to  have  properly  more 
than  one  side  of  sea-coast.  The  only  important 
one  is  Long  Island;  and  to  measure  all  sides  of  it, 
would  only  increase  the  length  about  one  hundred 
and  twenty  miles.  Our  Gulf  coast  is  one  thou¬ 
sand  two  hundred  miles,  and  our  Pacific  one  thou¬ 
sand  one  hundred;  altogether,  three  thousand  eight 
hundred  miles — exceeding  the  English  sea-coast 
but  three  hundred  miles.  California  and  Oregon 
are  mostly  uninhabited;  and  in  view  of  the  argu¬ 
ment  I  am  now  prosecuting,  viz:  as  to  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  a  preventive  force  to  obstruct  smuggling, 
it  may  be  thrown  out  of  the  estimate.  Do  so,  and 
include  our  lake  frontier  and  our  exposure,  and 
that  of  England  would  not  vary  a  great  deal,  as 
far  as  the  ength  of  sea-coast  is  concerned. 

Mr.  BROOKS,  (Mr.  Bayly  yielding  the  floor 
for  an  interrogatory .)  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  assert  that  the  Atlantic  sea-coast  is  but 
1,500  miles  ? 

Mr.  BAYLY.  I  do. 

Mr.  BROOKS.  The  sea-coast  of  Maine  alone 
is  1,000  miles  as  he  was  informed  by  members 
from  that  State. 

Mr.  BAYLY.  I  do  not  wish  or  mean  to  be  dis¬ 
courteous,  but  I  must  say  the  statement  of  the 
gentleman  is  not  only  incorrect,  but  preposterous. 
Why,  sir,  it  is  not  1,000  miles  from  the  Capes  of 
Virginia  to  the  northernmost  port  of  Maine. 

Mr.  BROOKS.  Did  the  gentleman  from  Vir¬ 
ginia  include  the  bays  and  rivers  in  his  measure¬ 
ment  ? 

Mr.  BAYLY.  1  did  not  make  the  measurement. 

I  applied  to  Lieutenant  Maury  to  measure  the  two 
coasts  for  me.  I  applied  to  him,  because  l  had  the 
greatest  confidence  in  his  science  and  accuracy; 
and  because  I  learned  he  had  all  the  charts  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  purpose,  which  1  had  not.  His  meas¬ 
urement  is  along  the  general  outlines  from  head¬ 
land  to  headland,  and  is  exclusive  of  bays,  har¬ 
bors,  friths,  creeks,  and  other  indentations  in  both 
countries.  And  here  I  beg  to  remark,  that  in  this 
respect  the  measurement  is  against  us.  Let  any 
one  look  at  the  maps,  and  they  will  see  this. 
Nothing  can  be  more  indented  and  irregular  than 
the  coast  of  the  United  Kingdom,  while  ours  is 
comparatively  otherwise. 

As  far,  therefore,  as  the  extent  of  sea-coast  is 
concerned,  as  large  or  even  a  larger  preventive 
force  is  necessary  than  with  us.  But  this  is  not 
the  main  consideration.  The  English  tariff  affords 
the  strongest  inducement  for  smuggling.  The  ; 


high  duties,  particularly  upon  tobacco,  spirits,  and 
some  other  articles,  make  it  necessary  to  keep  up 
the  largest  preventive  force  to  prevent  evasions 
of  the  customs;  while  with  us  our  tariff  affords  but 
small  comparative  inducements  to  lead  to  it.  There 
public  sentiment  does  not  reprobate  it  as  much  as 
here.  The  consequence  is,  in  England  the  strong¬ 
est  preventive  force  in  the  form  of  cruisers,  har¬ 
bor  vessels,  and  what  they  call  a  land-guard,  is 
necessary.  They  are  compelled  to. have  a  cordon 
of  officers  constantly  on  the  look  out,  for  which, 
with  us,  there  is  no  necessity.  Besides  this,  their 
proximity  to  the  Continent  increases  this  necessity 
on  their  part.  Any  small  vessel  can,  at  any  time, 
by  catching  a  favorable  wind,  run  over  almost 
unobserved.  But  with  us  only  large  sea-going 
vessels  are  employed  in  bringing  cargoes  across 
the  Atlantic;  their  advent  is  always  noticed,  and 
smuggling  by  them,  under  any  circumstances,  is 
difficult.  In  such  a  case  it  is  too  easily  detected 
and  proved,  and  then  comes  the  penalty-  Yet 
with  all  this  necessity  for  a  large  preventive 
force  upon  their  part,  they  collect  their  revenue 
from  customs  at  a  little  more  than  one-half  of 
what  we  are  asked  to  expend. 

Sir,  all  this  is  wrong.  It  ought  to  be  corrected; 
and  if  Congress  will  back  me,  it  shall  be  corrected. 

The  great  defect  in  the  system  is,  we  pay 
too  high  salaries  to  officers  in  the  employ  of  the 
General  Government.  This  is  the  case  as  con¬ 
nected  with  the  customs  from  the  highest  to  the 
lowest.  We  pay  the  collector  of  Boston  $6,400: 
which  is  double  what  any  State  officer  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  receives.  We  pay  the  collector  of  New 
York  the  same.  The  Governor,  who  is  expected 
to  do  the  hospitalities  of  the  State,  receives  $4,000. 
The  Chief  Justice,  who  must  have  the  highest 
professional  attainments,  receives  but  $3,000.  So 
in  Pennsylvania:  the  collector,  $6,400,  the  Chief 
Justice  about  $2,500.  In  Maryland,  the  collector 
$6,400;  the  Governor  $2,000,  and  Chief  Justice 
$3,000.  And  when  we  descend  from  the  collector 
through  every  grade,  we  find  the  same  irregularity 
till  we  come  to  the  very  barge-men — oarsmen  — 
who,  in  New  York,  receive  $600  per  annum.  The 
rate  of  compensation  for  all  employment  under 
the  General  Government  is  so  much  greater  than 
under  the  State  Governments  and  in  the  private 
walks  of  life,  that  all  eyes  are  turned  here.  The 
tendency  is  to  divert  men  from  private  pursuits 
(which  are  at  last  most  honorable  and  from  em¬ 
ployment  under  the  State  authorities,  to  look  here) 
— the  great  fountain  of  wealth  and  honor.  This 
increases  the  tendency  of  public  opinion  to  regard 
the  States  as  inferior  corporations,  instead  of  in¬ 
dependent  sovereignties,  and  tends  to  centre  every¬ 
thing  in  the  Federal  head,  and  leads  to  consolida¬ 
tion.  This  Government  is  the  idol  which  every 
aspirant  worships.  Besides  this,  it  adds  asperity 
to  our  political  contests.  So  far  from  there  being 
contests  for  principles,  they  are  contests  for  place. 
Bring  down  your  Federal  salaries  to  a  grade  equal 
to  that  which  prevails  in  our  State  Governments 
and  in  private  pursuits,  and  you  will  not  only  save 
a  vast  amount  of  money  to  this  Government,  but 
you  will  do  what  is  more — you  will  reduce  its 
patronage,  already  much  too  great,  and  you  will 
have  the  public  service  better  performed.  I  do 
not  doubt  but  that  you  can  get  a  better  collector 
in  New  York  for  $3,000  than  for  $6,400.  The 
one  would  take  the  office  as  a  plain  business  man, 


6 


to  <!o  its  duties,  and  without  ambitious  or  party 
views.  The  other  would  seek  it  for  its  emolu¬ 
ments  and  political  patronage.  In  the  one  case,  it 
would  be  filled  by  a  practical  man  of  business;  in 
the  other,  by  a  managing  politician.  The  charac¬ 
ter  of  each,  under  the  one  system  or  the  other, 
would  be  stamped  upon  all  under  them.  With 
not  much  more  than  half  the  expense,  l  maintain 
the  cheap  system  would  be  the  most  efficient.  I 
do  not  recommend  that  the  salaries  of  those  whose 
salaries  are  already  low  should  be  reduced.  By 
no  means.  I  would  strike  at  those  who  receive 
the  exorbitant  salaries.  I  would  harpoon  the  big 
fish,  not  the  small.  I  would  fly  at  high  game. 

I  know  it  is  supposed  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  cannot  touch  these.  It  is  said  their  sal¬ 
aries  are  regulated  by  law.  I  do  not  concur  in 
this  opinion.  When  the  law  of  the  3d  of  March, 
1849,  passed,  requiring  the  Treasury  Department 
to  reduce  the  expenses  of  collecting  the  revenue  to 
$1,560,000,  it  necessarily  gave  the  Secretary  the 
authority  to  do  it.  His  discretion  as  to  the  mode 
of  reduction  was  unlimited.  Suppose  the  salaries 
of  all  the  officers  of  the  customs  had  been  fixed 
by  law,  prior  to  the  act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1849, 
could  it  be  said  that,  therefore,  it  was  inoperative? 
that  the  last  law  would  be  controlled  and  nullified 
by  those  which  had  preceded  it?  I  do  not  know  in 
what  code  of  laws  such  rules  of  construction  are 
to  be  found.  Certainly  in  none  with  which  I  am 
acquainted. 

Tins  brings  me  to  the  circular  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury.  That  circular,  Mr.  Chairman, 
public  duty  requires  me  to  say,  1  consider  a  pal¬ 
pable  violation  of  law.  I  do  not  wish  to  say  any 
thing  harsh  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  My 
acquaintance,  with  him  is  slight;  but  such  as  it  is, 
has  made  a  very  favorable  impression  upon  me  to¬ 
wards  him  personally.  But  public  duty  requires 
me  to  express  the  opinion  1  entertain.  The  law 
to  which  I  have  referred  contemplated  the  reduc¬ 
tion  of  the  expense  of  collecting  ihe  revenue.  Its 
object  is  stamped,  in  letters  too  plain  to  be  mis¬ 
read,  upon  its  very  face.  It  was  to  reduce  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  collecting  the  revenue  To  relieve  whom  ? 
The  Government  alone?  By  no  means;  but  the 
country!  The  Secrelary,  however,  in  some  cases, 
shifts  the  burden  from  the  Government  to  the 
shoulders  of  the  merchant  and  importer.  By  his 
circular,  and  without  authority,  he  has  virtually  in¬ 
creased  the  tariff,  when,  I  am  quite  sure  the  coun¬ 
try  is  not  willing  that  Congress  shall  do  it,  who 
alone  have  the  power.  I  am  told  he  has  lately 
issued  a  second,  dismissing  many  officers.  I  have 
not  seen  it,  and  cannot,  therefore,  say  a  word 
about  it.  I  am  now  speaking  of  the  first  one  issued. 
I  repeat,  the  object  of  the  law  of  the  3d  of  March, 
1849,  was  to  reduce  the  cost  of  collecting  the  rev 
enue  to  the  public;  and  if  it  remain  the  same, 
whether  it  be  paid  by  the  merchant  or  the  Gov¬ 
ernment,  to  that  public  it  makes  no  difference,  for 
at  last  it  has  to  bear  the  burden.  A. id  the  shifting 
it  from  one  to  the  other  does  not  meet  the  object 
of  the  law. 

Mr.  SEDDON.  Will  my  colleague  and  friend 
inform  me  with  whom  the  law  of  March,  1849, 
originated?  I  ask  for  information 

Mr.  BAYLY.  I  take  pleasure  in  answering 
my  friend.  In  opening  the  debate  I  had  not  in¬ 
tended  to  refer  to  that.  But  as  1  anticipated  that  I 
might  be  called  upon  to  refer  to  it  in  reply,  I  am 


prepared  to  answer  his  question.  It  was  recom¬ 
mended  by  Mr.  Walker,  late  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  as  long  ago  as  March,  1846.  On  the 
16th  of  that  month  he  wrote  to  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  this  letter: 

Treasury  Department,  March  16,  1846. 

Sir  :  In  my  letter  of  the  23d  of  February  last  to  you,  the 
statement  was  made  that  the  expense  of  collecting  the  rev¬ 
enue  could  be  reduced  $537,864  below  the  expenditure  of 
the  last  fiscal  year.  To  insure  this  result,  I  respectfully  re¬ 
commend  that  a  clause  be  inserted  in  the  new  tariff  bill, 
limiting  the  expenses  of  collecting  the  revenue  under  that 
bill  to  a  Sum  not  exceeding $1,520,000. 

The  sum  expended  in  collecting  the  revenue  is  now  al¬ 
most  exclusively  within  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury.  The  payments  are  frequently  made  merely 
upon  his  written  order,  without  the  intervention  of  those 
checks  appertaining  to  the  liquidation  of  other  accounts, 
and  the  payments  are  not  regulated  by  specific  appropria¬ 
tions  made  by  law,  as  in  other  cases.  In  my  opinion  the 
expenses  incident  to  the  collection  of  the  revenue  should  be 
regulated  by  specific  appropriations,  and  the  payments  made 
subject  to  the  checks  applicable  to  the  settlement  of  other 
accounts. 

This  great  reform  can  only  be  introduced  by  the  legisla¬ 
tion  of  Congress;  but  if  you  think  proper  to  require  the 
cooperation  of  this  department,  it  will  be  cheerfully  granted. 

Most  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

R.  J.  YVALKER,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  James  J.  McKay. 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means. 

Again:  On  the  25th  of  May,  1846,  he  wrote  the 
following: 

Treasury  Department,  May  25,  1846. 

Sir:  Having  been  informed  by  you  that  the* suggestions 
made  in  my  letter  of  the  16th  of  March  last,  so  far  as  re¬ 
quired  the  limitation  of  the  expenses  incident  to  the  collec¬ 
tion  of  the  revenue,  and  the  regulation  of  the  same  by  law, 
met  the  approbaiion  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
1  enclose  a  provision  for  carrying  these  suggestions  into  ef¬ 
fect. 

This  provision,  it  is  believed,  should  be  appended,  as  a 
new  section  to  the  bill  reported  to  the  committee  for  redu¬ 
cing  the  duties  on  imports. 

If  that  bill  should  not  become  a  law,  and  the  provisions  of 
the  present  tariff  remain  unaltered,  the  expenses  incident  to 
the  collection  of  the  revenue,  including  drawbacks,  fishing 
bounties  and  allowances,  cannot,  with  safety,  be  limited  to 
the  sums  now  proposed  by  this  department. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

R.  J.  WALKER,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  James  J.  McKay, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means. 

Be  it  further  enacted ,  That  the  amount  to  be  disbursed  in 
payment  of  the  expenses  incidental  to  the  collection  of  the 
revenue  shall  not  exceed  in  the  whole,  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  the  3l)ih  of  June,  1847,  or  for  any  fiscal  year  succeed¬ 
ing.  the  sum  of  one  million  five  hundred  and  twenty  thou¬ 
sand  dollars,  and  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall 
have  full  power  to  diminish  any  branch  or  item  of  said  ex¬ 
penditures  so  as  to  bring  the  aggregate  amount  within  the 
limitation  above  mentioned,  and  that  hereafter  the  whole 
gross  amount  of  the  public  moneys,  by  whomsoever  received 
or  collected,  shall  be  paid  into  the  treasury  ;  and  all  expen¬ 
ses  incident  to  the  collection  of  tiie  revenue,  not  exceeding 
the  amount  above  stated,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  moneys 
iti  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  and  the  accounts 
thereof  shad  be  rendered  to  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  treasury  for  adjustment  by  them. 

The  recommendation  was  subsequently  renewed. 
But  under  the  difficulty  of  getting  bills  through 
Congress,  the  bill  to  carry  these  recommendations 
into  effect,  did  not  pass  this  House  until  the  15th 
of  March,  1848.  That  was  before  any  nomina¬ 
tions  for  the  Presidency  were  made,  end  when  of 
course  few  anticipated  that  this  Administration 
would  come  into  power. 

The  bill  did  not  pass  the  Senate  until  the  3d  of 
March,  1849.  But  before  it  passed,  it  came  to 
this  House  with  amendments,  where,  if  it  had 
been  disapproved,  it  could  have  been  defeated. 

Before  I  conclude,  I  have  a  word  to  say  about 
'  the  warehousing  system — not  by  way  of  argument 


to  sustain  our  opinions,  but  for  the  information  of 
the  House,  to  state  them. 

I  believe  that  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  are  decidedly  in  favor  of  that  system;  but 
with  some  modifications.  I  speak  with  confidence 
of  the  Democratic  part  of  the  committee.  We 
think  it  of  great  benefit  to  every  industrial  pursuit 
in  the  country — the  agricultural,  the  mechanical, 
the  Commercial,  and  the  manufacturing.  We  are 
satisfied,  the  country  will  never  surrender  it.  But 
we  think  the  plan  of  public  warehouses  ought  to 
be  abolished,  except  so  far  as  to  provide  ware¬ 
house  room  for  unclaimed  goods.  We  do  not 
think  that  the  Government  ought  to  engage  in  the 
warehousing  business  any  further  than  is  indis¬ 
pensable,  any  more  than  in  any  other  business  to 
which  individual  enterprise  is  equal.  Let  us 
open  free  competition  in  this  business,  under 
proper  safeguards  and  regulations,  and  that  com¬ 
petition  itself  will  reduce  the  cost  of  warehousing 
to  the  lowest  possible  amount,  to  the  relief  of  com¬ 
merce,  and  without  a  tax  upon  the  Government  or 
any  body  else.  The  system  with  us  was  a  new 
one,  and  doubtless  we  have  much  to  learn  in  re¬ 
spect  to  it.  In  the  first  instance  some  mistakes 
may  have  been  committed — mistakes  against 
which  human  foresight  could  not  guard.  But 
upon  the  whole  it  is  a  wise  one,  and  with  such 
modifications  as  experience  may  suggest,  it  will 
be  cherished. 

On  the  8th  of  February,  the  subject  being  again 
under  consideration,  Mr.  BAYLY  rose  and  ad¬ 
dressed  the  House  as  follows: 

I  shall  not,  like  the  gentleman  from  Massachu¬ 
setts,  [Mr.  Winthrop,]  promise  to  confine  myself, 
in  the  remarks  I  have  to  submit,  entirely  to  the 
proposition  before  us;  for,  if  l  were  to  do  so,  I  fear 
I  should  redeem  it  but  little  better  than  he  did,  who 
had  scarcely  made  the  promise  before  he  launched 
into  a  general  denunciation  of  the  tariff  of  1846,  the 
ruin  it  was  inflicting  upon  the  country,  and  “the 
fearful  ”  amount  of  revenue  it  was  bringing  into 
the  Treasury.  But  I  will  promise  to  wander  from 
the  proposition  before  us  no  further  than  is  ab¬ 
solutely  necessary  for  a  proper  reply  to  the  argu¬ 
ments  which  have  been  submitted  on  the  other 
side. 

I  have  listened  with  great  attention  to  this  de¬ 
bate.  The  defect  of  the  arguments  of  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Vinton,]  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Wintiirop,]  the  gentleman 
from  New  York,  [Mr.  Brooks,]  and  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  Holmes,] — for  the 
same  defect  pervades  them  all — is,  they  assume 
the  very  point  in  debate.  They  all  start  out  with 
the  main  proposition,  that  no  more  was  expended 
in  collecting  the  revenue  in  1848  and  1849  than 
was  indispensable;  and  assuming  this  to  be  true, 
they  argue  to  show  that  Mr.  Meredith  asks  for  no 
more  than  is  absolutely  necessary.  Their  main 
proposition  is  precisely  what  1  deny,  and  the  truth 
of  which  1  will  attempt  to  disprove.  If  I  succeed  in 
this,  with  the  foundation  of  the  argument  the  whole 
superstructure  will  fall.  In  1848,  the  per  centage 
for  collecting  the  revenue  was  six  and  near  a  half 
— in  1849,  it  was  upwards  of  seven.  This  rate  of 
expenditure,  which  is  nearly  double  of  the  average 
per  centage  expended  in  collecting  the  customs 
from  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  to  this  time, 


I  attempted  to  show  was  much  too  great;  that  in¬ 
stead  of  the  per  centage  for  collecting  growing  as 
our  commerce  and  revenue  increased,  the  precise 
reverse  ought  to  oe  the  case,  as  the  per  centage  for 
the  collection  of  a  large  sum  ought  to  be  less  than 
a  small  one.  I  showed  that  in  the  States  where  a 
system  of  direct  taxes  prevail,  (always  supposed  to 
be  much  more  expensive,  as  the  sums  are  received 
in  small  amounts  and  upon  personal  application, 
than  that  of  indirect  taxes,  where  the  sums  are  re¬ 
ceived  in  large  amounts  and  at  specified  places,)  not 
more  than  five  per  cent,  was  expended  in  collection. 
I  showed  that  during  the  existence  of  the  direct 
tax,  in  1816,  when  only  $3,560,651  were  collected 
from  the  whole  of  our  broad  expanse  of  territory, 
the  expense  of  collecting  was  but  5  3-16  per  cent. 
I  also  showed  that  in  the  United  Kingdom,  where 
economy  in  expenditure  is  no  part  of  their  system 
— as  surely  it  ought  to  be  with  us — the  expense  of 
collecting  their  customs  was  for  the  year  ending 
January  8,  1848,  5  19-20  per  cent..  In  Great  Brit¬ 
ain  alone  it  was  five  and  a  half;  in  England  alone 
less  than  five;  and  in  London  less  than  three.  I 
showed  that,  in  consequence  of  her  insular  and 
exposed  situation,  her  proximity  to  the  continent, 
and  the  great  inducements  held  out  for  smuggling, 
by  the  very  high  rate  of  duty  upon  many  articles, 
she  was  compelled  to  keep  up  an  enormous  pre¬ 
ventive  force  in  the  shape  of  cruisers,  harbor 
vessels,  land  and  water  guard,  which,  from  our 
different  condition,  in  the  particulars  referred  to, 
are  unnecessary  with  us.  This  item  alone  amount¬ 
ed,  in  the  United  Kingdom,  in  the  year  1848,  to 
the  large  sum  of  c£470,684,  or  upwards  of  two 
millions  three  hundred  thousand  dollars.  From 
all  this,  I  inferred  it  was  impossible  that  eight  or 
nine  per  cent,  was  necessary  to  collect  our  cus¬ 
toms*  ,, 

The  only  gentleman  who  attempted  to  answer 
any  part  of  this  argument  was  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio,  [Mr.  Vinton.]  He  said  that  I  was  mis¬ 
taken  in  my  estimate  of  the  cost  of  collecting  the 
customs  in  England;  that,  under  the  head  of  ex¬ 
penses  of  collecting  the  revenue  from  customs, 
they  do  not  .embrace  all  the  charges  that  fall  under 
that  head  in  this  country;  and  that,  if  you  include 
there  all  the  expenses  charged  here,  the  expense 
of  collection  there  would  not  probably  fall  short 
of  seven  and  a  half  per  cent.  And  when  requested 
by  me  to  specify  the  items  referred  to  by  him  he 
named  their  warehouse  expenses,  which  that  year, 
as  he  said,  were  some  one  hundred  and  sixty 
odd  thousand  pounds,  and  which  in  England  are 
not  charged  to  the  expense  of  collecting  the  cus¬ 
toms.  And  he  also  referred  to  some  other  items, 
the  amount  of  which  he  did  not  state. 

Now,  sir,  it  is  true  there  are  some  items  which 
with  us  are  charged  to  the  cost  of  collection,  which 
are  not  so  charged  in  England;  but  it  is  also  true 
that  there  are  charges  in  that  country  to  the  cost 
of  collection  which  are  not  charged  with  us;  and  if 
we  exclude  these  items  so  as  to  make  the  compari 
son  perfectly  fair,  so  far  from  its  diminishing  the 
disparity  of  expenditure  between  us  and  Great 
Britain,  it  will  greatly  increase  it.  This  struck 
me  at  the  first  examination  I  made  of  this  subject, 
and  it  occurred  to  me  to  recast  the  calculation. 
But  I  thought  I  should  expose  myself  to  just  criti¬ 
cism,  if  I  undertook  to  recast  the  calculation  made 
by  the  British  Government  itself  of  the  cost  of  col¬ 
lecting  their  revenue.  So  I  took  it  as  I  found  it, 


8 


made  by  them  to  my  hand.  But,  since  the  gen¬ 
tleman  from  Oh io  has  seen  fit  to  go  into  this  mat¬ 
ter,  I  must  follow  him.  And,  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
gentleman  must  excuse  me  for  saying  that,  in  this 
part  of  his  argument,  I  do  not  think  he  displayed  a 
candor  becoming  his  high  character  and  position. 

He  spoke  with  the  English  document  in  his 
hand.  With  this  source  of  authentic  information 
before  him,  he  said  that  if  you  included  in  the 
English  calculation  all  the  expenses  charged  here, 
the  charges  of  collection  there  would  not  probably 
fall  short  of  7|  per  cent.  Did  not  fairness  demand 
that  if  he  added  to  the  English  sum  items  charged 
here  and  not  there,  he  should  at  the  same  time 
have  deducted  the  items  included  in  their  estimates, 
and  not  in  ours?  But  this  he  did  not  do;  and  as 
he  did  not,  1  beg  leave  to  do  it  for  him;  so  that  the 
committee  may  see  whether  a  fair  comparison  will 
make  the  case  any  better  for  the  gentleman. 

In  the  first  place,  he  is  mistaken  in  saying  that 
the  expense  of  warehouses  was  some  one  hundred 
and  sixty  odd  thousand  pounds.  On  the  contrary, 
the  item  of  <£162,000,  to  which  he  refers,  includes 
quarantine  as  well  as  warehouse  establishments. 
If  he  had  looked  further  into  the  document,  he 
would  have  found  that  the  expense  of  warehousing, 
including  warehouse-keepers,  lockers,  rents,  taxes, 
tithes,  &c.,  amounted  to  £125,930  12s.,  and  not  to 
one  hundred  and  sixty  odd  thousand  pounds,  as 
he  states  it.  As  we  pay  neither  taxes,  tithes,  nor 
insurance,  as  the  British  do,  this  amount  ought  to 
be  still  reduced.  But  I  have  not  the  precise  data 
to  doit;  and  therefore  I  let  the  item  stand.  And 
as  we  charge  the  expense  of  warehousing  to  the 
cost  of  collection,  I  admit  it  ought  to  be  added  to 
that  in  Great  Britain  to  make  the  comparison  fair. 
But  then  we  must  deduct  charges  there  which  do 
not  exist  here.  And  they  are  numerous,  viz:  Al¬ 
lowances  for  special  service  and  travellingexpenses, 
£22,063  14s.  4d;  taxes,  tithes,  &c.,  £24,979  11s.; 
law  charges,  £6,330  18s. ;  superannuation  allow¬ 
ances — in  other  words  pensions — £129,236  9s.  Id.; 
allowances  for  offices  abolished,  and  compensation 
to  officers  for  loss  of  fees — in  England,  when  they 
abolish  an  office  theydo  notdeprivethpofficerof  his 
salary, it  seems, £24,032;  other  payments,  consist¬ 
ing  of  many  miscellaneous  items,  such  as  pensions 
to  widows  and  children,  &c.,  none  of  which  are 
chargeable  to  collection  here,  £23,556  12s.;  making 
altogether  £230,137  4s.  10d.,  from  which  deduct 
the  cost  of  warehousing,  and  the  difference  is  up¬ 
wards  of  half  a  million  of  dollars;  and  to  that  ex¬ 
tent  making  the  comparison  more  unfavorable  to 
us. 

This  is  not  all.  The  year  1848  was  an  unfa¬ 
vorable  one,  so  far  as  my  argument  is  concerned, 
it  was  the  year  of  the  potato  rot,  when  the  Brit¬ 
ish  ports  were  thrown  open  to  the  free  admission 
of  articles  of  human  food.  The  importations  of 
such  articles  were  enormous.  The  consequence 
was,  the  revenue  was  diminished  and  the  cost  of 
collection  increased.  The  very  year  before,  the 
cost  of  collection  was  in  the  United  Kingdom 
5  11-20,  and  in  Great  Britain  alone  5  4-20. 

But  I  will  not  press  this  part  of  the  argument 
further,  for  1  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  [Mr.  Toombs,]  that  a  comparison  with 
ourselves  in  former  years  is  ajuster  criterion  by 
which  to  judge  of  the  necessity  for  the  high  ex¬ 
penditure  existing  at  present.  When  I  addressed 
the  committee  before,  I  had  not  had  time  to  go 


minutely  into  the  calculation.  Since  then,  my 
friend  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  Green,]  has  gone 
into  a  minute  calculation  on  this  subject,  and  with 
his  permission  I  avail  myself  of  the  result  of  his 
labor.  He  has  calculated  the  cost  of  collecting 
our  revenue  from  customs  from  1792  to  1848. 
The  cost  of  collection  was,  from  1792  to  1800,  2 
6-10  per  cent.  From  that  period  to  1812,  it 
was  3  per  cent.  The  two  years  of  the  war  are 
left  out.  From  1815  to  1830  it  was  3  5-10. 
From  1831  to  1848,  6  4-10.  Average  for  56 
years,  4  2-10.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
per  centage  of  collection  has  been  constantly 
growing,  when,  considering  how  our  revenue  has 
increased,  it  ought  to  have  diminished,  as  the  per 
centage  for  collecting  a  large  sum  is  less  than  for 
collecting  a  small  one.  To  illustrate:  In  1815., 
when  the  receipts  were  $39,000,000,  the  per  cent¬ 
age  was  1§,  while  in  1817,  when  the  receipts  had 
fallen  to  $22,000,000,  it  had  risen  to  4.  Still,  with 
these  facts  staring  gentlemen  in  the  face,  we  are 
told  that  when  our  revenue  has  grown  till  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Winthrop] 
considers  it  “  fearful,”  near  twice  as  large  a  per 
centage  is  necessary  as  was  expended  for  56  years, 
and  three  times  as  large  as  was  expended  up  to 
1830.  Sir,  l  do  not  credit  it;  and  all  the  clamor 
of  all  the  custom-house  officers  in  the  world  will 
not  convince  me  of  it.  I  deny  that  any  such  ex 
penditure  as  was  incurred  in  1848  was  necessary, 
or  any  such  as  it  is  now  asked  may  be  allowed 
should  be  tolerated. 

I  know  it  has  been  said  that,  with  our  revenue, 
our  country  has  grown  and  new  districts  have 
been  established.  A  few  new  districts  have 
been  established — none  of  them  causing  much  ex¬ 
penditure — but  others  have  been  abolished.  The 
facts  prove  that  the  expenses  of  the  custom-house 
establishment  have  grown  much  faster  than  the 
increase  of  business,  and  in  a  ratio  much  larger 
than  the  extension  of  it.  In  1815  the  expense  of 
collection  was  but  $476,007.  In  1848,  $2,132,636. 
In  New  York  alone  it  is  nearly  double  what  it  was 
for  the  whole  country  in  1815.  Will  any  one  say 
that  the  collection  districts  have  multiplied  to  the 
same  extent  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  Let  us  look  into  some  other 
facts.  There  are  connected  with  the  custom-house 
at  Boston  one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  persons. 
The  foreign  arrivals  in  that  port  in  1848  were  3,009; 
or  on  an  average  of  about  eight  a  day.  I  know 
the  arrivals  are  irregular — some  days  many  more 
than  an  average,  and  on  others  less.  Of  these  ar¬ 
rivals  more  than  half  are  of  schooners,  and  mostly 
from  the  British  provinces,  laden  principally  with 
coal,  wood,  plaster,  &c.,  and  require  very  little  at¬ 
tention  from  inspectors.  Now  is  it  possible  that 
one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  officers  are  required 
to  attend  to  the  discharge  of  this  number  of  vessels  ? 
There  are  fifty-eight  day  inspectors  and  twenty 
night  inspectors — makingseventy-eight  inspectors. 
Suppose  the  arrivals  in  Boston  were  ten  a  day,  or 
twenty,  or  even  fifty,  still,  where  is  the  necessity  of 
all  this  force?  Will  any  one  believe  it  to  be  ne¬ 
cessary  ?  Sir,  a  gentleman  writing  to  me  from 
Boston  explains  this  thing  in  part.  He  says:  “A 
‘few  weeks  since  I  met  one  of  the  inspectors 
‘  walking  about  the  streets  at  his  leisure,  when  a 
‘  large  number  of  aids  (as  they  term  officers  who 
‘  are  employed  in  violation  of  law)  were  under  pay; 

‘  and  he  told  me  he  had  then  under  his  charge  a 


9 


‘coal  vessel  from  Nova  Scotia,  and  that  he  had  had 
‘  nothing  else  to  attend  to  for  eighteen  days.  He 
‘  told  me,  also,  that  the  only  service  he  had  to  per- 
‘  form  during  all  that  time  was,  to  go  on  board  the 
‘  day  she  arrived  and  lock  up  her  hatches,  and  that 
‘  he  would  have  nothing  else  to  do  till  the  captain 
‘  sold  his  cargo.” 

Mr.  WINTHROP.  Will  the  honorable  mem¬ 
ber  give  us  the  name  of  the  writer  of  that  letter  ? 

Mr.  BAYLY.  I  prefer  not  to  do  it.  It  is  from 
a  gentleman  for  whose  respectability  I  vouch. 

Mr.  WINTHROP.  Give  us  the  name  of  the 
officer,  then. 

Mr.  BAYLY.  My  correspondent  does  not  give 
me  the  name  of  the  officer.  My  correspondent  is 
a  gentleman  of  intelligence  and  respectability,  as 
the  gentleman  would  vouch,  if  I  could  give  him 
the  name.  But  I  cannot  do  it.  I  do  not  wish  to 
bring  about  his  ears  the  whole  Boston  custom¬ 
house. 

I  will  state  one  other  fact.  At  the  very  time  the 
New  York  papers  were  attacking  us  for  not  grant¬ 
ing  at  once  and  without  inquiry  all  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  asks  of  us,  and  complaining  of  a 
deficiency  of  force  in  the  New  York  custom¬ 
house,  1  saw  about  this  Capitol,  in  the  lobbies 
and  at  reporters’  desks  of  the  two  Houses,  and 
probably  writing  those  very  attacks,  one  of  the 
employees  of  that  custom-house.  Plow  is  it,  if 
there  be  a  deficiency  of  force,  the  custom-house 
officers  can  find  time  to  be  the  chief  agents  in  all 
political  meetings  and  to  attend  party  conven¬ 
tions?  Gentlemen  politicians  may  say  what  they 
please,  but  my  table  is  groaning  under  the  letters 
received  from  gentlemen  in  the  large  cities,  of  the 
highest  respectability,  expressing  their  disgust  at 
these  things. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Brooks] 
insists  that  the  change  which  has  taken  place  in 
the  description  of  our  shipping,  makes  a  larger 
force  in  the  custom-houses  necessary  than  former¬ 
ly.  He  says  that  since  the  introduction  of  sea¬ 
going  steamers,  merchants  make  more  frequent 
importations  and  in  smaller  packages.  Doubtless 
there  is  something  in  this;  but  it  is  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  changes  in  other  respects. 
Every  one  knows  that  the  size  of  our  sail  vessels, 
engaged  in  foreign  commerce,  has  been  greatly  en¬ 
larged  of  late.  Instead  of  ships,  of  three  or  four 
hundred  tons,  we  now  have  them  of  twelve  and 
fifteen  hundred;  and  other  sea-going  vessels  have 
been  enlarged  in  like  proportion.  The  number  of 
inspectors  required  for  the  same  amount  of  import¬ 
ation,  when  it  is  made  in  large  vessels,  is  much 
less  than  when  in  small;  and  as  far  as  this  argu¬ 
ment  is  concerned,  I  think  it  is  against  the  gen¬ 
tleman. 

Gentlemen  tell  us  a  great  deal  about  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  a  large  custom-house  force  to  prevent 
smuggling.  Sir,  I  do  not  put  much  faith  in  this. 
Our  tariff  affords  but  small  inducement  to  smug¬ 
gling,  in  comparison  with  the  risk  incurred.  But 
let  us  look  at  the  matter  a  little  in  this  light.  In 
the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  not  much  larger  in  ter¬ 
ritory  than  some  of  the  counties  of  Virginia — if, 
indeed,  as  large — there  are  fifty-five  persons  con¬ 
nected  with  her  custom-houses.  That  State  is  situ¬ 
ated  between  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  and 
not  very  far  from  the  great  emporium.  Virginia 
has  a  large  sea-coast;  her  territory  is  separated  by 
the  Chesapeake — the  Mediterranean  of  America. 


It  is  perforated  by  the  majestic  rivers  Potomac, 
Rappahannock,  York,  and  the  James,  running 
into  her  very  heart.  Yet  we  have  connected  with 
the  custom-houses  but  fifty-one  officers,  and  they 
are  enough.  There  is  no  smuggling  there,  not¬ 
withstanding  the  great  facilities  which  present 
themselves,  growing  out  of  our  immense  water 
line  and  the  few  custom-house  officers.  But  I 
carry  my  comparison  further.  There  are  connect¬ 
ed  with  the  custom-houses  of  Massachusetts  two 
hundred  and  fifty-five  officers;  while  there  are  con¬ 
nected  with  the  custom-houses  of  both  Virginia 
and  Maryland,  with  their  great  disproportionate 
territory,  but  one  hundred  and  fifty-three. 

Mr.  CHANDLER  inquired  if  the  amount  col¬ 
lected  in  Boston  was  not  larger  than  that  collected 
in  Norfolk. 

Mr.  BAYLY.  Certainly  it  is.  But  I  am 
speaking  now  of  the  necessity  which  we  are  told 
exists  of  a  large  force  to  prevent  smuggling. 

Mr.  WINTHROP.  What  is  the  expense  of 
collecting  the  revenue  in  Boston? 

Mr.  BAYLY.  It  is  not  quite  five  per  cent.  It 
lacks  a  very  small  fraction. 

Mr.  WINTHROP.  It  is  less  than  the  same 
expense  in  England. 

Mr.  BAYLY.  The  gentleman  says  that  it  is 
less  than  in  England.  I  will  inform  him — to 
make  the  comparison  more  equal — that  it  is  about 
double  the  same  expense  in  London. 

Mr.  STEVENS.  What  is  it  in  Norfolk? 

Mr.  BAYLY.  In  Norfolk  it  is,  as  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  the  Treasury  informs  us,  $28,505,  which 
is  more  than  the  receipts.  But  of  that  $17,564  is 
the  expense  of  the  revenue  cutter  which  guards 
the  whole  Chesapeake  of  Virginia  and  the  mouths 
of  all  our  large  rivers.  The  receipts  are  $23,528, 
and  the  expenditures  what  I  have  stated.  But  I 
will  also  inform  the  gentleman  that  at  the  three 
ports  of  Nantucket,  Barnstable,  and  Edgartown — 
all  in  Massachusetts — the  expenses  are  $14,958, 
and  the  receipts  $1,128.  There  is  not  attached  to 
either  of  those  places  a  cutter  to  swell  the  expense 
If  you  take  the  whole  State  of  Massachusetts,  th& 
expenses  of  collection  are  very  large;  but  I  cannot 
state  the  precise  per  centage,  as  I  have  not  made 
the  calculation.  But  it  is  much  beyond  any  ne¬ 
cessity. 

Now,  how  is  all  this  answered  ?  We  are  told 
that  Mr.  Walker  said,  in  his  annual  report  of  De¬ 
cember,  1847,  that  he  had  made  all  the  reductions 
of  expenditure  consistent  with  the  good  of  the 
public  service.  But  gentlemen  ought  to  do  Mr. 
Walker  justice.  They  ought  to  take  all  he  said 
on  that  subject  together.  In  each  of  his  three  let¬ 
ters  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  bear¬ 
ing  date  respectively  on  the  16th  of  March 
and  the  25th  of  May,  1846,  and  the  8th  of  Feb¬ 
ruary,  1847,  he  stated  explicitly  that,  to  enable 
him  to  make  all  the  reductions  which  were  desira¬ 
ble,  the  passage  of  a  law  was  indispensable.  It  is 
true  he  said  he  could  curtail  much  without  the  in¬ 
terposition  of  Congress;  but  in  his  letter  of  the 
8th  of  February,  1847,  he  said  : 

“  It  will  be  perceived,  by  reference  to  the  communications 
of  the  16th  of  March  and  25th  of  May  last,  that  this  depart¬ 
ment  then  entertained  and  expressed  the  opinion,  1st,  that 
under  the  new  tariff  the  expenses  of  collecting  the  revenue 
might  be  reduced  to  the  sum  of  $1,520,000  ;  2d,  that  these 
expenses  should  be  rendered  subject  to  appropriations  made 
by  law  ;  3d,  that  an  uct  of  Congress  was  then  deemed  neces¬ 
sary  to  carry  these  great  ref orms  fully  into  effect;  4th,  that  the 


10 


propriety  of  embracing  such  an  enactment  in  the  tariff  of 
1846  was  suggested  to  the  committee,  and  a  section  sub¬ 
mitted  for  that  purpose;  5th,  that  it  was  believed  this  great 
reduction  could  not  take  place  to  the  full  extent,  unless  ac¬ 
companied  by  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  of  1846.  This  act 
having  gone  into  effect  on  the  1st  December  last,  it  is  be¬ 
lieved  by  this  department  that  these  great  reforms  may  be 
carried  into  full  effect;  and,  with  the  cooperation  of  Con¬ 
gress,  the  sum,  of  half  a  million  of  dollars  a  year  may  be 
saved  to  the  Treasury ,  without  any  detriment  to  the  public 
service .” 

Gentlemen,  in  construing  the  report,  ought  to  tlo 
it  in  connection  with  this  letter  of  the  same  year;  and 
when  he  says  that  he  has  made  all  the  reductions 
he  could  make,  he  must  be  understood  to  mean 
without  the  cooperation  of  Congress,  which  he 
deemed  necessary  to  carry  these  great  reforms 
fully  into  effect. ” 

Sir,  without  Mr.  Walker’s  assurance  to  that 
effect  I  never  doubted  that  it  was  impossible  for  him 
to  make  the  necessary  reforms  without  the  coopera¬ 
tion  of  Congress.  He  might  write  circulars  till 
doomsday  and  he  would  not  effect  much.  All  of 
the  collectors  knew  quite  as  well  as  Mr.  Walker 
did  that,  till  the  enactment  of  the  act  of  3d  March, 
1849,  there  was  no  limitation  of  law  upon  these 
expenditures.  He  would  issue  a  circular,  for  in¬ 
stance,  saying  to  the  collectors,  the  expenditures 
in  your  houses  are  too  great — they  must  be  re¬ 
duced.  The  collector  would  not  find  it  very  pleasant 
to  set  about  the  business  of  curtailment.  It  is  a 
disagreeable  business.  Men  like  patronage,  and 
dislike  raising  a  hornet’s  nest  about  their  heads  ; 
and  most  collectors  would  find  it  easier  to  give 
plausible  excuses  for  not  making  reductions  than 
to  do  it.  But  suppose  the  Secretary  should  have 
it  in  his  power  to  say,  the  law  allows  me  but  so 
much;  if  you  expend  in  your  department  more 
than  a  particular  sum,  your  disbursements  will  not 
be  allowed  at  the  Treasury  :  my  life  for  it,  the  re¬ 
ductions  would  be  made.  And  if  there  was  no 
hope  of  frightening  Congress  into  measures  by 
making  the  reduction  in  the  most  oppressive  way, 
I  have  no  doubt  they  could  be  made  in  a  manner 
not  at  all  detrimental  to  the  public  service,  But 
there  were  extraordinary  charges  upon  Mr. 
Walker  in  1848  which  do  not  now  exist.  There 
was  the  debenture  system,  abolished  by  the  act  of 
3d  March,  1849 — the  heavy  importations  of  that 
year — and  the  war.  The  revenue-cutters  were 
employed  in  that  war;  and,  although  they  were 
armed,  equipped,  and  employed  as  vessels  of  war, 
they  were  supported  from  the  cost  of  collecting  the 
revenue. 

Mr.  EVANS,  of  Maryland.  Will  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  Virginia  allow  me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  BAYLY.  No;  I  prefer  not.  I  cannot  get 
through  with  what  I  have  to  say  in  an  hour. 

Mr.  EVANS.  I  have  the  facts. 

Mr.  BAYLY.  Well,  let  us  have  the  facts. 

Mr.  EVANS  proposed  to  read  an  extract  from 
the  report  of  Mr.  Walker,  late  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  on  the  warehouse  system. 

Mr.  BAYLY.  I  know  all  about  that;  and  I 
presume  the  House  does.  I  cannot  give  way  to 
allow  the  gentleman  to  read  what  we  are  all 
familiar  with. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Vinton]  has 
given  us  his  history  of  the  passage  of  the  law  of 
the  3d  of  March  last.  1  do  not  subscribe  to  the 
truth  of  it;  and  I  must  add  some  important  chap¬ 
ters.  It  originated  with  Mr.  Walker,  in  his  letter 
of  the  16th  March,  1846.  It  was  perfected  and 


carried  through  Congress  mainly  by  General 
McKay.  On  the  10th  of  August,  1846,  he  laid 
the  foundation  of  it  by  passing  through  this 
House  the  following  resolutions: 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  cause  to  be 
prepared  and  communicated  to  this  House,  at  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  the  next  session,  a  statement  of  the  cost  of 
collecting  the  revenue  from  customs  for  the  year  ending  the 
30th  June  1846,  arranging  the  several  items  of  expenditure 
under  distinct  and  appropriate  heads. 

Resolved,  further.  That  the  said  Secretary  also  communi¬ 
cate  to  this  House,  at  the  same  time,  estimates  of  the  sums 
of  money  which  will  be  necessary  to  defray  the  expenses  of 
collecting  the  revenue  from  customs  for  the  latter  half  of 
the  present  year,  and  for  the  next  fiscal  year,  arranging  the 
same  under  separate  and  appropriate  heads,  so  that  Con¬ 
gress  may,  if  it  think  proper,  bring  this  branch  of  (he  publio 
expenditure  more  within  its  control  than  it  is  under  the  ex¬ 
isting  law  ;  and  that  he  report  the  expense  of  collecting  the 
revenue  in  each  collection  district  separately. 

Resolved,  further,  That  the  heads  of  the  several  Executive 
Departments  be  and  they  are  hereby  required  to  inform  this 
House,  at  the  commencement  of  the  next  session,  whether 
any  and  what  changes  can  be  made  in  the  several  branches 
of  the  public  service,  by  which  greater  economy  and  more 
or  equal  efficiency  may  be  secured  in  their  administration. 

The  democrats  had  a  large  majority  in  this  body. 
Nevertheless  these  resolutions,  calling  for  the  data 
upon  which  to  predicate  this  great  reform,  did  not 
pass  without  resistance.  The  vote  upon  their 
passage  was  nearly  a  strict  party  vote.  Every 
whig  who  voted,  except  three,  voted  against  them, 
and  every  democrat  for  them.  Their  motive  for 
opposition  to  the  law  of  March  last  was  different 
then  in  part  from  what  it  is  now.  They  had  all 
predicted  with  great  confidence  that  the  tariff  act 
of  ’46  would  not  yield  revenue  enough  to  support 
the  Government,  and  they  resisted  retrenchments 
of  expenditure  to  make  good  their  prophecy.  The 
call  thus  made  was  answered  by  Mr.  Walker  in 
detailed  estimates.  The  expenditures  in  the  year 
1846  had  been  $2,006,043.  He  proposed  a  cur¬ 
tailment  of  $500,000.  In  his  letter  accompanying 
the  estimates,  he  said: 

“  It  is  believed  by  the  department  that  these  great  reforms 
may  be  carried  into  full  effect,  and,  with  the  cooperation  of 
Congress,  the  sum  of  half  a  million  of  dollars  a  year  may  be 
saved  to  the  treasury,  without  any  detriment  to  the  public  ser¬ 
vice.  To  effect  this  object  the  department  would  propose  thaL 
under  the  head  of  ‘  inspectors,  &,c.,’in  table  A,  the  amount 
should  be  reduced  from  $966,397  98  to  $860,000;  under  the 
head  of  4  appraisers  and  appraisments,’  from  $164,435  02  to 
$140,000;  under  the  head  of‘  revenue  boats,’ from  $83,871  06 
to  $50,000;  under  the  head  of  ‘  revenue-cutters,’  from 
$497,855  01  to  $200,000;  under  the  head  of  ‘  contingent  ex¬ 
penses,’  from  $101,404  12  to  $90,000;  and  the  item  of$6,583  27 
for  ‘extra  clerk  hire,’  be  entirely  discontinued  in  future; 
making  a  total  reduction,  as  compared  with  the  last  fiseai 
year,  of  $474,546,  and  of  $526,367  compared  with  the  year 
preceding.” 

The  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  took  him 
at  his  word,  and  deducted  $500,000  from  the  ex¬ 
penditures  of  1846,  and  thus  arrived  at  the  sum 
appropriated  by  the  act  of  the  3d  March  last,  viz: 
the  sum  of  $1,560,000.  And  here  the  answer  is 
given  to  the  assertion  that  the  law  in  question  was 
passed  in  haste  and  without  estimates.  On  the 
contrary,  it  was  based  upon  the  most  carefully 
prepared  estimates.  The  bill  passed  this  House 
the  16th  of  March,  1848.  In  the  Senate  it  was 
suggested  that  it  repealed  the  fishing  bounties,  and 
Mr.  Atherton  reported  an  amendment  to  remove 
all  doubt  on  that  subject.  This  was  the  only 
amendment  proposed  at  that  time,  except  one  to 
insert  the  words  “  together  wTith  such  sums  as, 
under  the  laws,  are  paid  into  the  Treasury  for 
drayage,  cartage,  labor,  and  storage.”  The  bill 
was  not  reached  in  the  Senate  at  that  session.  At 


11 


the  next  session  it  again  came  up.  It  was  sug¬ 
gested  that  the  passage  of  the  law  as  it  stood  would 
vacate  the  bonds  of  all  the  collectors.  To  obviate 
this  objection  Mr.  Hunter  proposed  an  amend¬ 
ment;  also  one  concerning  depositing  goods  in 
warehouses,  not  affecting  the  main  object  of  the 
bill,  and  another  altering  the  dates,  which  the 
lapse  of  time  made  proper.  The  bill,  as  amended, 
came  to  this  House,  passed,  and  became  a  law. 
During  all  this  time,  in  neither  House  of  Congress 
was  one  word  said  about  the  sum  allowed  being 
too  small,  or  any  amendment  offered,  except  the 
one  of  Mr.  Atherton,  concerning  cartage,  &c., 
to  increase  the  amount.  Thus  we  see  that  the 
law  was  predicated  upon  estimates,  and  deliber¬ 
ately  passed  by  the  two  Houses  of  Congress. 
And,  in  its  passage,  we  have  the  deliberate  ex¬ 
pression  of  opinion  by  Congress,  that  the  sum 
spent  in  1846  was  half  a  million  too  much. 

Before  quitting  this  subject,  I  must  do  a  gentle¬ 
man  (Gen.  McKay)  justice  who  has  been  assailed, 

1  think,  in  a  most  uncalled  for  manner  by  the  gen¬ 
tleman  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  Holmes.]  He 
compared  him  to  an  owl  that  could  see  mice  holes 
in  the  dark,  but  became  blind  in  the  light  of  day. 
And  who  is  the  man  thus  spoken  of  in  this  House? 
For  many  years  he  was  the  chairman  of  its  most 
important  committee.  In  the  obscure  labors  of 
that  committee,  he  toiled  till  his  strength  gave 
way  under  them.  He  did  more  to  carry  the  tariff 
act  of  1846  through  this  House  than  any  other 
member  of  it — that  act  which  repealed  the  tariff 
of  1842,  denounced  by  the  gentleman’s  constitu¬ 
ents  as  more  oppressive  than  the  tariff  of  1828, 
which  they  resisted  to  the  point  of  nullification. 
He  carried  that  act  through  this  House  which  is 
filling  our  coffers  with  wealth  and  spreading  pros¬ 
perity  through  the  land.  And  in  doing  this,  he 
sometimes  had  not  the  aid  of  the  gentleman’s 
presence.  He  is  now  reposing  from  his  labors 
upon  his  hard-earned  fame  in  unambitious  re¬ 
tirement.  And  this  is  the  man  who  is  com¬ 
pared  by  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina 
[Mr.  Holmes]  with  an  owl!  Common  gratitude, 
if  nothing  else,  ought  to  have  restrained  him.  I 
heard  the  gentleman  with  pain,  and  I  have  no 
doubt,  when  in  a  less  dispassionate  moment  he 
reads  his  own  words,  he  will  regret  they  were 
uttered. 

I  return  from  this  digression.  The  gentleman 
from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Vinton,]  assuming  that  the  rate 
of  expenditure  in  1848  was  not  too  great,  main¬ 
tains  that  the  appropriation  now  proposed  is  less, 
as  it  excludes  the  sums  paid  for  cartage,  storage, 
and  labor,  and  therefore  much  too  small.  But  it 
includes  what  is  received  under  those  heads. 
The  Government  first  pays  the  cartage,  labor, 
and  storage;  but  in  many  cases  it  is  refunded  by 
the  merchant.  What  the  precise  difference  is,  he 
does  not  inform  us,  as  most  surely  he  ought,  con¬ 
sidering  his  position  and  his  relations  to  the  Sec¬ 
retary  of  the  Treasury.  In  the  absence  of  spe¬ 
cific  information,  which  the  Secretary  in  his  letter, 
informing  me  of  the  errors  of  his  estimate  upon 
which  my  first  speech  was  based,  does  not  give,  I 
a  precise  calculation  cannot  be  made.  But  the  ! 
gentleman  from  Ohio  supposes  what  is  paid  may  ; 
be  $250,000  or  $300,000;  but  he  does  not  inform 
us  what  is  received  back.  In  this  case,  as  in  that 
of  his  estimate  about  the  British  expenditure,  he 
deducts  from  one  side  when  it  suits  him,  without  ' 


making  the  proper  deductions  from  the  other.  He 
makes  no  reduction  for  the  expenses  incurred  in 
1848,  which  are  now  saved  by  the  repeal  of  the 
debenture  system;  none  for  the  expense  entailed 
upon  the  revenue  service,  in  consequence  of  using 
the  cutters  as  vessels  of  war;  none  for  the  reduc¬ 
tion  made  by  Mr.  Meredith  in  June  last,  in  that 
branch  of  the  service.  He  reduced  the  force  then 
one-third.  I  presume  he  made  his  reductions  in 
the  most  costly  branches.  If  so,  the  reduction  in 
money  was  more  than  one-third.  But  put  it  at 
one-third,  and  here  is  a  saving  of  ninety  odd 
thousand  dollars.  Then  the  gentleman  leaves 
out  all  received  for  cartage,  labor,  and  storage, 
which  the  proposition  before  us  appropriates. 
These  items  altogether  must  greatly  exceed  the 
one  to  which  the  gentleman  refers.  Include  these, 
and  the  reduction  which  ought  to  be  made  upon 
the  Atlantic,  and  the  Secretary  will  have  more 
than  enough,  with  proper  economy,  for  the  ex¬ 
penses  in  Oregon  and  California.  1  think  gentle¬ 
men  greatly  exaggerate  the  difficulties  there.  They 
consist  principally  in  the  high  price  of  rents  and 
labor.  The  leading  officers,  I  presume,  are  satis¬ 
fied  with  the  salaries  as  fixed  by  law,  as  I  under¬ 
stand  there  was  great  competition  for  those  situ¬ 
ations. 

With  the  inspectors,  there  will  be  some  diffi¬ 
culty,  as  the  limit  of  the  law  is  too  small  for  the 
rate  of  wages  in  that  country  at  present.  But  very 
few  inspectors  will  be  required.  There  is  but  one 
port  of  entry — San  Francisco — and  the  high  price 
of  everything  reduces  the  duty  to  such  a  small  per 
centage  upon  the  California  value  as  to  hold  out 
no  inducement  for  smuggling.  As  to  labor,  cart¬ 
age,  and  storage,  what  is  paid  by  the  Government 
will  be  the  criterion  of  what  shall  be  refunded  by 
the  merchant. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  controverts  my  posi¬ 
tion  as  to  the  legal  effect  of  the  law  of  March  last. 
In  reference  to  it,  I  said  in  my  opening  remarks, 
that  when  it  passed,  requiring  the  Treasury  De¬ 
partment  to  reduce  the  expenses  of  collecting  the 
revenue  to  $1,560,000,  it  necessarily  gave  the  Sec¬ 
retary  the  authority  to  do  it.  His  discretion  as  to 
the  mode  of  reduction  was  unlimited.  Suppose 
the  salaries  of  all  of  the  officers  of  the  customs 
had  been  fixed  by  law,  prior  to  the  act  of  the  3d  of 
j  March,  1849,  could  it  be  said  that  therefore  it  was 
inoperative? — that  the  last  law  would  be  controlled 
and  nullified  by  those  which  had  preceded  it?  1 
do  not  know  in  what  code  of  laws  such  rules  of 
construction  are  to  be  found;  certainly  in  none 
with  which  I  am  acquainted. 

In  reply  to  this,  the  gentleman  asks  can  the  Sec¬ 
retary  then  abolish  the  custom-houses  in  the  south¬ 
ern  States?  He  informs  us  that  most  of  those  from 
the  Potomac  to  New  Orleans  are  charges  upon  the 
Treasury,  and  by  striking  them  off,  the  deficiency 
of  means  would  be  made  up  at  once.  It  so  hap¬ 
pens  that  we  have  a  Constitution,  which  is  the  su¬ 
preme  law  of  the  land,  that  not  only  deprives  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  authority  to  do  this, 
but  Congress  itself.  I  know  that  that  Constitution 
!  very  rarely  stands  in  the  way  of  the  gentleman  in 
!  accomplishing  his  purposes;  but  I  generally  take 
I  it  into  consideration  in  making  up  my  opinions 
where  it  applies.  If  gentlemen  suppose  the  cus¬ 
tom-houses  at  the  South  are  exclusively  for  our 
benefit,  I  think  they  are  greatly  mistaken.  But 
<  for  the  Constitution,  they  might  abolish  them  to- 


12 


morrow,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  and  let  us  have 
free  trade.  But  I  fancy  such  a  proposition  would 
be  rather  rigorously  opposed  from  the  North.  The 
opinion  I  have  expressed  as  to  the  effect  of  the 
law  of  March  last  may  be  very  absurd,  but  I  have 
the  pleasure  to  know  it  is  concurred  in  by  so  sound 
a  lawyer  as  the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  [Mr. 
To  OMBS.] 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Vinton]  says 
that  the  law  of  March  last  is  an  anomaly  in  our 
system.  And  both  he  and  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Wintiirop]  ask  what  would 
be  thought  of  a  law  appropriating  so  much  money 
for  the  army  or  navy,  and  requiring  that  more 
should  not  be  expended  ?  That  is  precisely  what 
we  do.  The  Constitution  requires  that  no  money 
shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury,  except  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  appropriations  made  by  law.  We 
make  appropriations  of  specific  sums,  with  the 
right  of  the  Secretaries,  in  certain  cases,  to  make 
transfers.  These  sums  cannot  legally  be  ex¬ 
ceeded.  How  does  that  differ  from  this  law  ?  The 
reductions  to  be  made  in  the  cost  of  collecting  the 
revenue  are,  in  their  nature,  administrative  and 
not  legislative.  It  would  be  difficult  to  make  spe¬ 
cific  appropriations  ;  and,  without  authority  in  the 
Secretary  to  make  transfers,  it  would  not  work 
well,  I  am  satisfied.  In  the  army  and  navy  the 
employment  is  stationary — it  is  always  pretty 
much  the  same  ;  whereas,  in  collecting  the  cus¬ 
toms,  at  one  time  there  is  a  pressure  of  business, 
at  another  a  stagnation  ;  at  one  time  a  larger  force 
is  necessary,  at  another  a  smaller  one.  The  law 
contemplates  this,  and  hence  the  pay  is  “  per 
diem.”  In  many  of  the  collection  districts,  the 
officers  are  temporarily  and  not  constantly  em¬ 
ployed.  In  the  large  cities  it  should  be  otherwise, 
perhaps,  to  a  great  extent ;  but  in  other  places  it 
must  be  as  it  is. 

Before  I  dismiss  this  branch  of  the  subject,  I 
wish  to  call  the  gentleman’s  attention  to  one  fact. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  an  estimate  by  the  collectors  of 
Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore, 
for  the  expenses  of  their  offices  for  the  next  fiscal 
year.  They  propose  to  increase  the  expenditures 
in  those  four  custom-houses  $212,946.  They 
propose  to  curtail  the  revenue  marine  very  largely, 
but  to  increase  their  other  expenditures  to  the 
amount  I  name;  and,  in  spite  of  the  Secretary,  it 
will  be  done,  if  we  remove  the  restrictions  of  law. 
He  does  not  adopt  their  estimates;  but,  with  my 
personal  respect  for  him,  I  prefer  to  rely  upon  the 
restriction  of  law,  rather  than  his  sternness. 

A  violent  assault  has  been  made  upon  the 
ground  I  take  in  favor  of  reducing  the  salaries 
under  the  General  Government  to  a  scale  which 
Will  put  them  upon  an  equality  as  to  emolument 
with  those  received  in  the  private  pursuits  of  life 
and  under  the  State  governments;  and  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Winthrop]  speaks 
of  my  zeal  in  favor  of  economy  as  a  new-born 
one.  No  one  knows  better  than  the  gentleman 
that,  until  this  session,  I  have  never  been  in  a 
position  to  require  that  I  should  take  this  matter 
especially  in  charge.  He  has  served  with  me 
ever  since  I  have  been  in  Congress;  and  if  he  will 
run  back  in  his  memory,  or  if  my  humble  course 
has  escaped  him — in  which  event  he  ought  not  to 
have  spoken  until  he  informed  himself — if  he  will 
look  to  my  recorded  votes,  he  will  find  that  I  have 
voted  as  steadily  as  any  other  member  of  this 


Blouse  against  extravagant  appropriations,  no 
matter  what  their  object  may  have  been.  What¬ 
ever  may  be  my  course  in  private  life,  as  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  people,  whether  here  or  else¬ 
where,  I  have  been  a  rigid  economist:  not  from  a 
spirit  of  parsimony,  but,  because  I  think  it  accords 
with  the  spirit  of  our  republican  institutions.  As 
to  the  other  ground  taken,  it  has  been  a  favorite 
idea  with  me  for  many,  many  years.  The  high 
salaries  under  this  Government,  compared  with 
those  under  the  States,  are  corrupting:  in  their  in¬ 
fluence;  they  turn  all  eyes  to  this  Federal  head- 
tend  to  lower  the  States  and  State  employmentst 
and  lead  directly  to  consolidation.  They  convert 
political  contests  into  struggles  for  place,  instead 
of  principles,  and  add  violence  to  them.  I  know 
of  no  reform  more  important  than  bringing  down 
the  salaries  under  this  Government  to  a  level 
with  those  received  under  the  States,  and  in  pri¬ 
vate  life.  Do  this,  and  the  eternal  struggle  for 
the  spoils  will  cease.  And  if  Congress  will  sus¬ 
tain  me,  this  great  reform  shall  be  made. 

I  am  told  that  collectors,  naval  officers,  survey¬ 
ors,  &c.,  who  can  give  the  requisite  bonds,  and  are 
competent  to  the  stations,  could  not  be  had  for  less 
salaries  than  they  now  receive.  Sir,  I  do  not  be¬ 
lieve  it.  The  treasurer  of  the  United  States  gives 
heavy  bonds,  and  has  upon  his  shoulders  great  re¬ 
sponsibility.  His  salary  is  $3,000.  How  is  it 
with  executors,  guardians,  fiduciaries  of  every 
character?  How  is  it  with  cashiers  of  banks? 
How  is  it  with  the  collector  of  Philadelphia?  I 
am  told  he  was  once  cashier  of  a  bank,  and  had  to 
give  heavy  bonds.  Did  he  receive  half  the  salary 
lie  does  now?  1  fancy  not.  Be  that  as  it  may,  I  know 
that  it  is  not  the  size  of  the  salary  received,  but 
the  character  of  the  man  which  enables  him  to  give 
security.  The  offices  in  question  require  no  great 
capacity  in  the  incumbent.  Any  good  business 
man  is  capable  of  filling  any  of  them;  and  a  plenty 
of  such  can  be  readily  obtained  at  smaller — much 
smaller — salaries  than  are  now  paid. 

If  gentlemen  holding  such  offices  receive  no  more 
than  enough,  why  such  competition  for  them 
Why,  in  a  country  like  this,  where  the  avenues 
of  employment  are  so  wide  open  to  all,  are  men  so 
anxious  to  quit  private  pursuits  for  governmental 
employment,  with  all  of  its  uncertainties,  and  its 
ups  and  downs?  How  isitthat  they  can  bear,  and 
willingly  bear,  such  heavy  assessments  for  elec¬ 
tioneering  and  corrupting  purposes?  Sir,  under 
our  present  system,  what  are  the  recommenda¬ 
tions  of  applicants  for  office  ?  Is  it  that  they  are 
honest,  faithful,  capable  ?  Far  from  it.  I  hold  in 
my  hand  a  Philadelphia  paper,  containing  an  arti¬ 
cle,  which  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  sort  of  recom¬ 
mendations  which  are  urged  in  favor  of  applicants 
for  office.  It  reads  thus: 

“We  sincerely  hope,  in  common  witli  all  Native  Ameri¬ 
cans,  that  General  Peter  Sken  Smith  will,  on  the  rejection 
of  Mr.  Lewis,  be  appointed  collector  of  the  port  of  Philadel¬ 
phia.  General  Smith  is  preeminently  entitled  to  this  appoint¬ 
ment  for  the  signal  services  he  rendered  in  bringing  about,  the 
nomination  of  General  Taylor ,  and  for  the  labor  and  money  he 
expended  in  helping  to  secure  the  election  of  the  hero  of  Buena 
Vista.” 

It  does  not  stop  here.  The  editor  continues: 

“  We  demand  General  Smith's  appointment  as  aright — 
and  in  the  name  of  the  Native  American  party,  we  ask  for  it. 
Mr.  Lewis  is  of  no  more  service  to  the  Administration  than 
a  fifth  wheel  would  he  to  a  wagon,  and  the  sooner  he  is  re¬ 
moved  the  better;  the  Native  American  vote  notwnly  rules 
the  county  of  Philadelphia,  butthe  State  of  Pennsylvania.” 


13 


I  know  nothing  of  this  controversy  about  the 
collectorship  of  Philadelphia.  That  it  is  so  fierce 
only  proves  that  the  prize  in  the  shape  of  salary 
and  patronage  is  too  great.  I  know  nothing  of  it, 
and  want  to  know  nothing  of  it.  But  I  very  much 
suspect,  from  the  character  of  Gen.  Smith ’s  recom¬ 
mendation,  that  Mr.  Lewis  is  the  better  man  of  the 
two.  But  I  know  nothing  about  it.  What  is  the 
character  of  the  recommendation  ?  That  General 
Smith  has  fine  business  capacities?  That  he  will 
be  acceptable  to  the  commercial  community  of 
Philadelphia?  Oh,  no!  He  rendered  signal  ser¬ 
vice  in  effecting  the  nomination  of  General  Taylor, 
and  spent  his  money  in  procuring  his  election. 
He  belongs  to  that  miserable  faction,  the  Native 
American  party,  which  we  are  told  holds  the  bal¬ 
ance  of  power  in  Pennsylvania;  and  therefore  his 
appointment  is  demanded.  Sir,  1  know  that  news¬ 
papers  do  not  generally  come  out  thus  openly;  but 
the  recommendations  thus  proposed  are  those  most 
relied  upon,  and  they  show  the  demoralizing  ten¬ 
dency  of  the  policy  against  which  I  am  warring. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Brooks] 
has  been  kind  enough  to  lecture  me  as  to  the  way 
by  which  I  can  acquire  a  national  reputation.  He 
advises  me  to  rise  above  party,  and  pursue  a  course 
of  liberality  which  will  gain  for  me  plaudits 
through  the  land.  This  is  his  idea,  not  his 
language.  If  that  gentleman  or  anybody  else  sup¬ 
poses  that  I  will  be  beguiled  from  my  duty  by 
such  considerations,  or  deterred  from  it  by  denun¬ 
ciation  and  detraction,  they  have  greatly  mis¬ 


judged  my  character,  and  exhibit  an  ignorance  of 
my  humble  history.  I  have  resisted  those  things 
heretofore,  and  I  shall  do  it  in  the  future.  I  know 
the  penalty  where  a  man  treads  the  plain  path  of 
duty,  when  it  does  not  lead  in  the  direction  which 
power  could  desire.  But  I  shall  tread  it  fearlessly. 
The  cause  I  am  pursuing  will  meet  with  the  appro¬ 
bation  of  the  party  to  which  I  belong — of  the  con¬ 
stituents  I  represent — and  above  all,  of  my  own  con¬ 
science.  If  it  meets  with  the  approbation  of  others, 
I  shall  rejoice  at  it,  but  if  it  does  not,  I  shall  not 
repine.  But  why  admonish  me  to  rise  above  party? 
Does  not  the  gentleman  know  that,  in  the  very 
movement  to  take  up  this  bill  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  in  preference  to  other  matters,  and  claiming 
the  floor  in  preference  to  my  friend  from  Missis¬ 
sippi,  [Mr.  Brown,]  I  verged  upon  discourtesy  to 
him  to  whom  I  should  be  so  reluctant  to  be  dis¬ 
courteous?  Does  he  not  know  that,  in  my  perti¬ 
nacity  yesterday  to  stop  the  debate  upon  this  bill, 
in  order  that  the  suspense  of  the  Treasury  Depart¬ 
ment  might  be  relieved,  I  resisted  the  wishes  of 
friends  who  desired  to  debate  it?  He  knows 
all  this.  Why,  then,  lecture  me  about  rising 
above  personal  and  party  considerations  ?  In  my 
opening  remarks  I  made  no  reference  to  party 
topics.  They  have  been  introduced  by  the 
other  side.  And  if  they  have  not  allured  me  into 
a  party  debate,  it  only  proves  how  unnecessary 
have  been  the  admonitions  of  the  gentleman.  I 
have  no  wish  to  embarrass  the  Administration,  but 
I  shall  not  cater  to  its  extravagance. 


■ 


♦  I  ‘ 

t'  » 


. 

*  .  • 


! 

‘ 

. 


* 


> 


. 


‘ 


. 


- 


!  / 


\ 


■  ::  -■ 


)  K 


